If you try to replicate Table 2 you will note that I (this is Neal Beck, who did the data analysis, Jonathan Katz is blameless) though I could simplify the table output by first mean centering all variables and then fitting the model with these, avoiding the need to add all the country dummies to the specification. As so often happen, this attempt to make life easier for the publisher led to a mistake. This mistake was kindly pointed out by Jeff Lewis, who tried to replicate our results. The mistake I made was to take the interaction variable (labor*left) as the product of centered labor and centered left. Alas that does not center the interaction around its country mean. Thus Table 2 is not the same as what Garrett did, since he did actual fixed effects (as Jeff shows). Apologies for this. Fortunately the paper was not about fixed effects so no conclusions or arguments in the paper change. But if you really want to play with either Table 1 or Table 2 you should just do fixed effects and not try to mean center (you can do the latter, but then you have to remember to mean center the interaction, and in Table 1 the mean centered lag of a variable is not the same as the lag of the mean centered variable (because one uses the first observation and one does not). Apologies to all.
Jeff kindly provided R files to document the difference for Table 2; this file is lewis.pdf; the relevant output is in lewis.pdf. Annual Reviews does not publish corrigenda, so this will have to do. Again, sorry for the stupidity, but hopefully I learned something. Thanks to Jeff. And again, Jonathan is blameless.

Neal
